Maximum PC license RSS Feed

Murphy's Law: Sometimes, an Open-Source Virus is Just a Virus

David Murphy — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:37:53 -0500

The phrase "open-source" is such a sexy term.

It's so hip and fresh. Open-source singlehandedly represents the latest and greatest thinking in the modern-day technological movement. Drop it into a conversation and you're suddenly talking like a futurist. Throw it into a company's strategic roadmap and suddenly we've created innovation and depth. Suggest that virus-makers are embracing open-source, and you've got the attention (and clicks) of Web geeks worldwide.

Wait a minute. Open-source viruses? How does that work?

If you think about the actual definition of open-source for a moment, you'll wind up being as confused as I am about this latest bit of fad reporting to pass around the Web. According to an article from CNET, virus-makers are apparently transforming their wares into open-source projects and using the power of the group to achieve advancements in virus deployment, nasty features, and scanner obfuscation.

That's all well and good (for the virus-makers), but that's as open-source a situation as an apple is an orange. What's being described is an example of collaboration and communication based around a common or to-be developed piece of code. That sounds like open-source--an apple and an orange are both pieces of fruit, after all. But that's not really open-source because we're ignoring the critical elements that help define what open-source software truly is. Virus-makers aren't going open-source in the slightest. They're spinning derivative works from older viruses and developing free code while holding hands and singing the Pirates of the Caribbean song, but that's it. And it's hardly a new fad.

Since the beginning of geek time, the more nefarious members of the technology world have worked together to try and create newer means for achieving their less-than-upstanding desires. This notion of collaboration can be as simple as taking an older crack and retrofitting it for newer editions of a program, or as far-ranging and complicated as the operation of an entire distribution network for stolen CD images. Are either of these examples of open-source? No.

What makes a software project open-source is not the fact that people are teaming up during its creation. Open-source software conforms to a specific set of tenets for creation and distribution. In essence, the definition of open-source centers on the licensing issues that permit one to take code, modify code, and release code under a similar license for others to play around with. The licensing elements are critical to the open-source equation: They allow for one to meaningful contribute to a communal work without running afoul of the normal copyright law that protects all software code. Well, almost all.

The code for viruses, by their very nature, cannot be copyrighted. Or, at least, I have yet to read about a virus creator suing another code-monkey for violating his or her ability to independently build and release malware--if this ever comes up in the courts, please let me know. I'll be the one in the front row with the popcorn.

I jest, but it's a lot like calling the police to complain that someone stole your bag of cocaine. You might be able to get some sort of legal retribution against said thief, but that doesn't mean that your activities are in any way afforded the same legal protections as the types of property or possessions the law was designed to protect. Even if a virus maker wanted to craft a particular bit of software around the GPL, the absence of the underlying copyright function would render the whole point moot--not to mention that the inability (or lack of desire) to offer up the source code to all interested participants (like, say, law enforcement) would render said license void on its face. And those are just the two examples I can come up with off the top of my head. There are plenty more.

Is this a stupid semantics debate? Yes and no. Given the vitriol that can accompany the ages-old "open-source is not free" discussion, I don't think it's that far-fetched to call an "open-source virus" exactly what it is: a public domain program, at best. Reserving the correct phrase for its correct usage minimizes confusion and, more importantly, helps hold off the eventual transformation of "open source" into the next big synonym for "community-driven." It also gives us a chance to ponder what a closed-source virus program would look like.

And, of course, what would happen if someone listed one of those on The Pirate Bay.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!

Murphy's Law: LiberKey. GPL Violation or Sour Grapes?

David Murphy — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:00:31 -0500

Hell hath no fury like an open-source developer scorned. In the red corner, we have Portable Apps and its developer, John Haller. In the blue corner, we have LiberKey and project manager Christophe Peuch. Both programs are suites of applications that can sit on your USB key for portable use. Both offer a number of open-source or freeware apps that assist you in your everyday PC tasks without costing you a single penny. At one point, it was argued that both shared an identical design, layout, and operation. But that's just one of the many charges being heaved across the battleground--its accuracy, along with the others, is subject to dispute.

I wrote a while back about the confusing issues surrounding open-source and freeware licensing. They haven't changed. The controversy over LiberKey is a perfect example of the confusion--enough so, that Maximum PC itself removed a mention of the suite from one of our freeware roundups after allegations of wrongdoing on the developer's part. But is this piece of software as guilty of the violations as the Internet chatter would have you believe? Or has LiberKey done its fair share to eliminate the liabilities caused by its inclusion of open-source and freeware apps into a large package manager?

Why should you care? That's the easiest answer of them all. Supporting applications that stick to the legal guidelines of trademark, permissions, and licensing ensures you're downloading stable, safe, and secure packages that foster the spirit of open source software. If you support software that flaunts the rules, you disrespect the work of those who contribute their works to the greater community. And I wouldn't want to lose these developers--nor their awesome (usually) free applications.

Here's a brief background: On various forum posts, John Haller--creator of the PortableApps software suite--has called out LiberKey for trademark and GPL violations related to the licensing of the open-source and freeware apps bundled in its software suite. Although LiberKey has responded to various forum posts on the topics, it's been difficult to track down their arguments for two key reasons. First, the developers are French. Their official forums are in French and their occasional replies to LiberKey criticisms come in the form of readable--but admittedly crude--English. Second, the developers have yet to release an official stance beyond these difficult-to-track forum replies. However, I contacted LiberKey for their side of the story, and they sent me an official statement they've created to respond to the licensing allegations.

It's easy to first misconstrue Haller's accusations as sour grapes. LiberKey, after all, is a direct competitor to Haller's work. He has also alleged that original incarnations of LiberKey directly ripped off his work with PortableApps by packaging his software routines alongside additional modifications--including stripping out PortableApps logos, modifying source code, and removing accompanying licensing materials. LiberKey refutes these claims, but did ultimately stop publishing its software suite for a time to create new installation and application launching software.

Backstory aside, Haller now cites three chief reasons why LiberKey is in violation of various legal requirements. It's no small surprise that his arguments all center on the three primary issues that often pop up when dealing with open-source distribution: permissions, licensing, and trademarks.

Permissions

Haller's Accusation: According to Haller, LiberKey distributes open-source and freeware software without permission from the developers.

LiberKey's Response: "Regarding freeware, each license is different. Hundred software is hundred different licenses [sic] to be examined (each one may have specific limitations). These limitations have led us to numerous requests for permission to authors / publishers when license required."

If a software developer has an issue with LiberKey's inclusion of a program, they need only contact the LiberKey developers to have the application quickly removed. Accordingly, LiberKey's Christophe Peuch says that LiberKey will not be releasing any records related to the permissions it has gathered from freeware developers.

"Now, who, except a copyright owner is mandated to argue whether the agreement was granted or not? Is PortableApps mandated? Why don't they contact each author and ask them the question? Why don't they draw their attention on us and seek their position on how come we include their software [sic] into the LiberKey suite?"

Analysis: I contacted BitTorrent Inc., as its freeware uTorrent application has been frequently cited as one which the developers would "never give permission" for distribution. As it turns out, that's not the case. Simon Morris, Vice President of Product Management, stated that the company has no problems with users distributing its software in a free, unmodified format, provided an attribution to the source Web site is included. I could find no demands for permissions on the uTorrent site, nor did Morris indicate that permission would be required prior to distribution.

That's not the case with all freeware applications. But on this, it's difficult to deny LiberKey its point. The duty of negotiating permissions and following up the on illegal distribution of a piece of software falls on a developer's shoulders, not a third-party's. It's unfair to criticize LiberKey without direct proof that it's bundling an application without permission, as these allegations amount to little more than, "he-said, she-said" assaults. It's still a bit odd to see LiberKey refusing to refute the charges by showing off proof of the permissions it has gathered. LiberKey is allowed to fight this battle in public or private, and should not be taken to task just because it's chosen the latter option.

Licensing

Haller's Accusation: According to Haller, "They distribute GPL/LGPL/etc software (OpenOffice.org, VLC, Miranda, etc) without also distributing the source as required by the license."

LiberKey's Response: "There are many types of licenses (LGPL 2.1, LGPL 3.0, GPL 2.0, GPL 3.0, MPL 1.1, BSD, MIT, Freeware etc.), Each with its own obligations. That is why, concerning each open source software, our position is as follows:

we deliver all binaries without modification
we include the type and version of License in the information panel of the launcher (asuite)
we provide a direct link to the author's Website in the information panel of the launcher (asuite)
and on our listings on the Website LiberKey.com, we specify, in a dedicated file at the root of the software (softwarename - license - source.txt) the path to the license file and address of sources availability

Analysis: The licensing issue is LiberKey's can of worms. I'll start with freeware. While BitTorrent would have no objections to LiberKey including a uTorrent installation executable as part of a general distribution package--a best-of apps CD, for example--Morris said the company would object to any modifications made to the installer. BitTorrent wants to manage the program's own, untouched installation routine. As Morris puts it, "If this [program] installs our app with a different installer then we’d probably not be too keen on it (we greatly prefer to manage the install process ourselves)."

The problem? LiberKey's installation routines use a program's unmodified installer, but it comes packaged as part of a larger, automatic LiberKey installation mechanism that the company brands with the extension .LKS. Each program that LiberKey offers comes in an .LKS package. When you click on these packages to install them into LiberKey, the program automatically places the results of a program's typical installation into your LiberKey folder. In fact, LiberKey completely takes over the installation process--you get none of the usual pop-up screens found in the program's default installation mechanism. You get no options; nothing.

Unfortunately, this very scenario takes us back to the chicken-and-egg permissions issue from before. If LiberKey has received permission from a freeware developer to distribute software in this fashion, then it's in the clear. But just because a piece of software is "freeware" doesn't mean that it's "free-to-do-whateverware." In the case of uTorrent, the EULA clearly specifies that the license to use the software is granted for personal, non-commercial purposes. Thus, to distribute uTorrent, LiberKey would need permission from the company to overlook this clause in the license. Given BitTorrent's preferences for uTorrent's original installer, it's hard to believe that the company has been willing to grant LiberKey permission to distribute its software in such a fashion. But absent of concrete proof from either side, we're back to finger-pointing.

As far as open-source software goes, however, LiberKey is in the wrong and does indeed violate provisions of software licenses. I won't get into the specifics of each potential license (we could be here all day). Suffice, its blanket treatment of all open-source licenses using the four aforementioned points is incorrect when it comes to software that's been licensed under the GPL 2.0. Yes, the GPL 3.0 is the latest version of the license. But that doesn't automatically upgrade GPL 2.0-licensed software with additional rights and permissions.

Why is that important? Because the GPL 2.0 does not allow for linking to source code over the Web to satisfy the requirement of source code availability. When distributing a piece of open-source software licensed under the GPL 2.0, an entity must one of the following criteria:

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

LiberKey is incorrect in assuming that its inclusion of links to hosted versions of the code satisfies the requirements of the older GPL 2.0 license. It doesn't. LiberKey is violating the license of software like KeePass and the VLC Media Player, amongst others.

Trademarks

Haller's Accusation: "And they're using the trademarks of Google, Mozilla, Opera and many others in connection with modified software, also apparently without permission, which isn't permitted by any of the trademark guidelines I've seen."

LiberKey's Response: "..."

Analysis: Here's the deal. Although you might have the legal right to distribute a piece of freeware or open-source software based on the license, you still have to abide by the rules for a company's registered trademarks and logos. You can distribute the unmodified executables and code all you want, but you might still have to seek permission to use a company's trademarked names when referring to the software.

In the case of Firefox, for example, a user can distribute an unchanged version of the installation application and refer to it using Mozilla's trademarked titles without seeking permission from the company. But are LiberKey's changes--packaging the unmodified installation executable into a larger installation program--considered a modification? Typically, the word "modification" relates to the source code or unpacked files from an installation program: Change the default favorites in Firefox, and you won't be able to actually call the package Firefox without seeking permission, for example. I contacted Mozilla for clarification on situations like these, but they elected not to comment.

OpenOffice.org did get back to me, however, and suggested that the combination of an installer application and an unchanged OpenOffice.org installation executable would be acceptable as a matter of licensing. The trademark issue still stands--a distributor would need to seek permission from OpenOffice.org to use the title and accompanying logos.

Has LiberKey extended the arm for these permissions? It doesn't really matter: Even if they have, the developers are in violation. Tossing aside the questions of installers and modifications, LiberKey abuses Mozilla's trademarks by calling its version of the application "Firefox Portable." Mozilla explicitly states that use of its trademarks must be done, "in their exact form -- neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words." Similarly, the size of the depicted on-screen logo--16 pixels by 16 pixels--runs below the Mozilla's minimum guidelines of 40 pixels tall.

Let's just assume for a second that LiberKey has indeed contacted Mozilla--much like John Haller himself did--and secured permission to title an portable version of Firefox, "Firefox Portable." The same issue crops up again for OpenOffice.org. The trademark, as LiberKey displays it, is just plain wrong: "OpenOffice (OOo) Portable" instead of "OpenOffice.org" or, assuming permission was granted for a portable version, "OpenOffice.org Portable." There is absolutely no reason why OpenOffice.org would allow a company to shorten its trademarked name. As for the accompanying logo LiberKey uses on OpenOffice (OOo) Portable's description page, I can't find it in any of the image archives that OpenOffice.org has released for (permission-backed) use.

In short: LiberKey's modified software might not be such a big deal, but the trademarking provisions are. And even if LiberKey has obtained permission to use trademarks--which it has offered no proof or suggestion of doing--it's still using some trademarks incorrectly.

The Final Word (Finally!)

John Haller and others have had some pretty strong words against LiberKey. While their assertions might not be entirely correct as a matter of law or licensing, LiberKey's own actions have created doubt that the company is fully compliant with all licensing, permission, and trademark requirements. We'll never know the he-said, she-said back-and-forth surrounding the company's alleged outreach to software developers--not until one of them sues LiberKey, that is. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

To their credit, the LiberKey developers did a great job of reaching out and contacting me to discuss their side of things. The facts remain the facts: LiberKey violates the GPL 2.0 license and incorrectly uses trademarks and logos, permission or not. A numbre of LiberKey's issues could be cleared off the table if the permissions its allegedly been granted ever saw the light of day. The company refuses to do so. That single sentence says almost as much as the 2,000+ words preceding it.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source and roundups of awesome, freebie software. Shoot him a message via Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!

Murphy's Law: A Tale of Open Source Cities (No Sims Included)

David Murphy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:34:27 -0500

With a mighty "yehhh," the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, passed a motion to adopt open standards in its local government this past May. I find it to be a wonderful development--not just because I write about open source. Rather, I think that the move is a twofold triumph: It allows governments to free themselves of pricy, proprietary software burdens while simultaneously opening up more areas of government for access by conventional citizens.

It's no secret that programs like HOST and CRADA are helping the U.S. bring new, open standards of communication and accessibility to the forefront of the discussion. I'd nevertheless like to see more cities working the answer from a bottom-to-top approach, adopting motions like Vancouver's--or, for that matter, using Vancouver's exact template--to call for the integration of open-source ideas and programs wherever possible in local government.

It's not an idle dream, as various cities in the United States have already started to dip their toes into open waters. If our brethren to the north can take the plunge into open source sans hesitation, why not us as well?

Let's first consider the actual parameters of Vancouver's motion, which calls for more than just switching from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice.org. In it, the legislation defines three principle calls to action:

Open and Accessible Data: the City of Vancouver will freely share with citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data possible while respecting privacy and security concerns;
Open Standards: the City of Vancouver will move as quickly as possible to adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media;
Open Source Software: the City of Vancouver, when replacing existing software or considering new applications, will place open source software on an equal footing with proprietary systems during procurement cycles.

This has broad implications--like the subsequent example in the motion that calls for Vancouver to, "License any software applications developed by the City such that they may be used by other municipalities, businesses, and the public without restriction." But the motion's principles can also relate to something as simple as using a non-proprietary format when recording videos of local legislative action. Or, a blessing to reporters everywhere, a single entry point for accessing government data and records in an easy to navigate, universal format. As a former court reporter in Chicago, I can't begin to describe my frustration for you in having to hop on what amounted to an old Amiga computer just to access monochrome government records.

U.S. cities have been steadily creeping up to this idea. The City of San Francisco is currently sponsoring a community called OpenData, which seeks to blend these ideas of transparency and universal access under a single roof. This follows in the footsteps of Washington D.C., which has already implemented a wide degree of data feeds related to government services and interactions that are all freely available for the public to digest.

Piggybacking off of that, the city even set up a contest for third-party developers to create their own open-source Web applications or digital feeds based off this information. According to Government Computer News, winners included, "a Web map that, when D.C. given an address, can return demographic data, crime reports and other information for that neighborhood. Also winning an award was a carpool matchmaker and a series of mobile phone apps that, using the phones GPS tracking, can point you to the nearest bank, post office, gas station or other resource." That's a great handful of useful applications that, surprise, would have cost the city far much more in time and resources to produce itself.

But it seems that for every open source project that's underway (or in the planning stages), there's a countervailing force keeping this kind of access out of the public hands. Take New York City, for example. If you've ever lived in a big city, you'll know that one of the most useful elements for your daily life would be an on-time guide that tells you when the next form of public transit is headed your way. It's a simple concept, right? Slap some trackers on the transportation, develop some kind of useful mobile application or Web site, and let everyone plan their schedules for when the next crosstown bus will arrive at their doorstep.

Not so fast. In regards to NYC, John Geraci from DIYcity.org puts it best: "To the MTA of course this is unthinkable. They refuse to even make their timetable information public via API, citing legal and security concerns, and seeming to harbor a feeling that there's money to be made from that data." While he goes on to suggest that programmers are nevertheless developing applications to make the best of what available data exists in various cities, his ultimate point mirrors mine pretty closely.

Just imagine the possibilities that could occur if cities, big and small, opened up their vast information infrastructures in easy-to-access, common interfaces. Let third parties take the freely available information and spin it into valuable applications that benefit everyone--or, better yet, have the various governments license this information under the stipulation that derivative works would have to be just as open themselves.

"Open source the cities!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "hack the planet!" Nevertheless, I really think Vancouver's on to something great. Numerous American cities have been playing in the open source pool for some time now. I say it's time to head over the falls--perhaps this could inspire more tepid cities to piggyback on for the ride.

Microsoft, Intel to Limit Netbook Licenses to Sub-10.2 inch Models

Paul Lilly — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:07:10 -0500

As netbooks continue to grow in size, you might be left wondering where netbooks end and traditional notebooks begin. The answer is 10.2 inches, assuming news and rumor site DigiTimes has been fed accurate information. Citing un-named sources at Taiwan-based ODM notebook makers, DigiTimes says Microsoft and Intel agreed to decrease the screen-size ceiling for netbooks running Windows 7 from 12.1 inches to 10.2 inches.

Should the restriction be put in place, it would spell the end for 11.6-inch Atom Zxx-based netbooks once Windows 7 launches, the sources said. It could also hamper VIA, who doesn't put any restrictions on how vendors use its CPUs and chipsets. VIA-based netbooks larger than 10.2 inches wouldn't qualify for the lower Windows 7 licensing rates, thereby potentially taking away any advantage VIA might have had in the 11-inch and above market.

Murphy's Law: Licensing Your Thoughts, 140 Characters at a Time

David Murphy — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:30:00 -0500

If you're a fan of open source, you're a fan of licensing. Okay, maybe not a fan. But you still have to respect the legal power of the documents attached to open-source software and projects, which describe for you the exact ways you can and cannot use, modify, and pass-along the licensed material. While a newcomer to the open source might see these licenses as restrictive entities prohibiting commercial exploitation of a body of work, they're the lifeblood of those who spend untold hours poring over the bits and bytes of a dream. Not as a means of financial extortion for companies that want to use the software, rather, these licensing documents ensure that the spirit of open source carries on regardless of a project's potential iterations.

I sometimes wish I could apply a license to everything I do on the Internet. And perhaps you will too, once you realize that you're a content creator -- just like me, anyone who writes for this site, and any of the estimated 17 million (and counting) microbloggers on the popular Twitter service. As of yesterday, Twitter has joined forces with Threadless. The t-shirt retailer and community hub is now the centerpiece in a massive effort to transform your witty public Tweets into customized, cash-generating clothing. But this partnership respects the spirit of licensing, even though the actual legal rights you hold as a Twitter user are still open for debate.

Twitter's terms of service specify that anything you post to the site is yours to keep. The company claims no rights over any of your content and you're free to remove your work at any time by privatizing your Tweets or deleting your account. End of story, right?

Not really.

If you choose to wade into the public Twitter waters with everyone else, then your work can be subject to submission to Threadless -- this isn't outright stated in the Twitter ToS, although it's a de-facto technique that's been created as a result of the new partnership. Anyone can submit any public Tweet on the service to Threadless. But here's the catch. Even though your Tweet is may or may not be copyrightable on its face value, Threadless is taking the time and effort to notify every single Twitter user whose witty saying is nominated for potential t-shirt superstardom. It's a kind of polite licensing -- although you posted your message to a public entity and, in theory, could have no copyright on a reinterpretation of your words, Threadless is treating you as if you slapped a big ol' All Rights Reserved on your idea.

From there, a Twitter user has the option to approve all nominated Tweets, piecemeal together two separate lists of approved and denied tweets, or deny Threadless entirely. If a Twitter user's message wins out and gets printed on a shirt, said person receives $360 in cash and a $140 gift certificate to Threadless. The Twitter bounty hunter, or original submitter of the Tweet, gets $100 cash and a $40 gift certificate.

Now, the thorny part. What happens if a user wants to exert some kind of creative control over his or her popularized Tweet? Suppose everyone likes a message I create: "Nathan Edwards is a scruffy nerf herder." I tell Threadless that they can print my novel idea onto a shirt and they toss me a small bit of cash. Suppose that shirt takes off on Threadless' site and it gets passed around the Internet like the video of that fat kid dancing to the Swedish song. Suddenly, dollar signs go off in my eyes, and I begin to think about all the ways I can fill up Scrooge McMurphy's vault by drafting up a Web site and selling my own merchandise.

It's a far-fetched example, yes, but the crux of Twitter's Terms of Service remain clear: you hold the rights to your work. As such, you should be able to spin your creations as you please, competing with the very entity that will likely send your message viral to begin with. And even if you have to enter into an additional licensing agreement with Threadless for your Tweet to be printed, you should also be able to change the terms of your license at a whim -- transforming the informal "commercial" condition into a more restrictive entity whenever and however you want. But your ability to do so is unclear in regards to Twitter's ToS. And I don't see many users making use of a solution like tweetCC, a dubious solution at best. How can one actually protect against the remixing or tweaking of a Tweet?

Still, we should all be happy that Twitter and Threadless are at least doing something to protect the integrity of your words. Although it very well might turn into a battleground at some point, the service is currently too new to suffer the legal filings of a Twitter user scorned. What's yours to Tweet is yours to keep, but what happens to the thousands of people who have passed your message along to thousands of their friends? What's to stop one of them from beating you to the Threadless punch with a spin-off (or direct copy) of your funny idea? That's the bigger problem with this new, retail-oriented Twitterverse... and all the licenses in the world aren't going to win you the day when Threadless has no way of identifying the original owner of an idea. Try figuring that one out in 140 characters or less.

Steal David Murphy's hilarious remarks for your own fashionable use by following him on Twitter. He won't sue you. Trust me.

AMD, Intel Want More Data Public in x86 Licensing Fracas

Paul Lilly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:00:50 -0500

The dispute between Intel and Nvidia over disagreements pertaining to Intel's Nehalem chipset license almost seems like old news now that Intel and AMD are going at each other. Intel claims AMD doesn't have the legal wherewithal to "unilaterally extend Intel's licensing rights to a third party," which in this case would be Globalfoundries, and has threatened to pull its 2001 agreement within 60 days if AMD doesn't address Intel's concerns. AMD, on the other hand, says it isn't doing anything wrong.

So who's in the right? To help determine that, Intel has offered to make the terms of the x86 cross-licensing deal public, for which AMD has agreed, but not without a stipulation. AMD wants Intel to lift the secrecy demand on all antiturst evidence submitted by AMD in the 2006 antitrust case.

"We will make the entire cross-license agreement public if they drop their insistence on secrecy on the evidence in the U.S. antitrust case," said Patrick Moorehead, AMD VP of marketing.

Intel does't appear willing to do so, and as far as the No. 1 chipmaker is concerned, AMD might just as well have rejected the offer outright.

"Intel is willing to make the entire [x86 cross-license] agreement public," said Chuck Mulloy, Intel spokesman. "We've told AMD we would be fine with making the entire agreement public. AMD has declined to do so."

Someone pass the popcorn.

Shots Returned: Nvidia Responds to Intel's Chipset Lawsuit by Bashing CPUs

Paul Lilly — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:15:47 -0600

This is starting to get ugly. It's bad enough watching Intel and Nvidia go at each other over licensing disputes (remember how long we waited for SLI on Intel chipsets?), but the two aren't showing any signs of letting up. In response to Intel's recent lawsuit, which alleges Nvidia has no right to produce chipsets that are compatible with any Intel processor that has an integrated memory controller, the GPU/chipset maker had some choice words for Intel.

"We are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of Nvidia. "At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

Huang has never been one to mince words, at one time declaring his company would "open a can of whoop-ass." Now less than a year later, the quote-worthy CEO has declared the CPU just another run-of-the-mill component taking a backseat to the GPU.

Nvidia's press release went on to talk up the company's Ion platform, and was quick to point out that it "offers 10x the performance of Intel's current three chip design." Huang also said that given the broad and growing adoption of Nvidia's platforms, including the Ion, he's not the least bit surprised Intel is disputing a four-year-old contract.

Anyone else feeling just a wee bit uncomfortable?

Image Credit: Nvidia

At War Again: Intel Sues Nvidia over Nehalem Chipset License

Paul Lilly — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:15:35 -0600

You know that couple that is always at odds with each other, turning parties and other get-togethers into awkward affairs? The worst part is when they both turn to you to pick a side, and all you're trying to do is have a good time. For power users, that couple is Intel and Nvidia. We don't know what it is with these two, but just when their relationship appears to be on an upswing, another squabble breaks out.

After years of butting heads, Intel and Nvidia just recently came to agreement over licensing the GPU maker's SLI technology for use on Intel chipsets, and all appeared to be right in the world. But now the two are at it again, this time with Intel taking the offensive. Intel has filed suit against Nvidia this week claiming that the four-year old chipset license agreement between the two does not cover both its current and any future CPUs with integrated memory controllers.

"Intel has filed suit against Nvidia seeking a declaratory judgment over rights associated with two agreements between the companies," Intel said in a statement. "The suit seeks to have the court declare that Nvidia is not licensed to produce chipsets that are compatible with any Intel processor that has integrated memory controller functionality, such as Intel’s Nehalem microprocessors and that Nvidia has breached the agreement with Intel by falsely claiming that it is licensed. Intel has been in discussions with Nvidia for more than a year attempting to resolve the matter but unfortunately we were unsuccessful. As a result Intel is asking the court to resolve this dispute."

Nvida contends that the license agreement is still valid, however admits that it has been "working with Intel to come to some kind of agreement" for the past year. And despite the lawsuit, Nvidia says it has no plans of changing its roadmap, including those chipsets which extend to future processors.

Not even our divorced parents fight this much.